rogerclee

It seems to me like this is a bit simpler because you don't have to worry as much about "other major" type hands, either 4 or 5+. As in most areas of bridge, "natural" is mostly fine, with "transfers" being a slight improvement.

This seems like a reasonable method to me over 1m (1N), with 1N showing the other minor and a 4 card major. pass = weak or a minimum negative double X = cards, usually no 5 card major 2m = minimum minor raise 2om = hearts, constructive or better 2H = spades, constructive or better 2S = inv+ minor raise 2N = mixed raise 3m = preemptive 3om/H/S = splinter If you are willing to give up your simple minor raise to show a hand with either major, I think that would be quite reasonable.

How is balancing seat different from direct seat? This isn't the 2 level, it's not like RHO is suddenly going to jump to 6S and you'll be sitting there like OH THANK GOD I DIDN'T BALANCE.

It's really bad to play 3H is a splinter in this auction, because hands with 0-2 spades and 0-1 of a side suit where the opponents aren't bidding anything are very rare. You can play 3H or a 3D jump over clubs as lots of things, but splinter is not effective.

To me 3Hx is probably cold and is more likely to make 4 than go down on the auction we had (1D X 2C P 3C X). Your double dummy simulator is leading a diamond and getting its diamond ruff always. This will happen much less in real life.

Nonforcing 3D?

I specifically remember him bidding 3♥ on that hand. One of us has lost our marbles. On this deal I give both blame, west is worth 4NT over 3♣ (natural) assuming he doesn't want to bid 3♥, and east misdescribed by bidding 5♣ instead of 4♣. I think he was playing with Woolsey and thought that 3H was a good bid but didn't want to try it undiscussed so bid 3N. So maybe both of you are right.

I would have bid 2C the previous round. Edit: I think doubling the previous round might also be okay but it's a little weird.

Ummm, I can't believe west is getting blame at all. He said he wanted to play 3N! Bidding 3N implies you have no interest in a contract other than 3N! He had no interest in a contract other than 3N! Maybe it's not right, but it's what he said, and it worked fine on this hand in terms of not playing 5C. If east pulls, it should be to 4C. This gives west the chance to bid 4N, which is to play! Or he could bid more. But anyway, west doesn't get any blame for 5C, when his partner described his hand as very shapely but not very strong with the minors (by not going through 4C).

Under the conditions 1) Someone has 8 cards in hearts and clubs 2) There are 9 possible clubs he could have and 6 possible hearts he could have. 3) He has either 5 clubs and 3 hearts or 6 clubs and 2 hearts. I get that he is 2:1 to be 5-3, as opposed to 6-2. (This is binomial(9,5) * binomial(6,3) vs. binomial(9,6) * binomial(6,2)) I am not sure if this is applicable in this situation, someone should feel free to let me know.

I think this is what you meant.

I would bid 3H and call it pretty obvious.

John Mohan is a very good player, but I still don't really get 3H. Maybe they were playing precision, maybe he was playing with a client who doesn't know to go low with 2H if it's close, or maybe he just thought it was percentage. At the end of the day he is only one (very strong) expert, and I really doubt 3H is the expert majority view.

I think the stance is that because the script says west would double a 1C opener but overcall 1S over 1D, he is probably 5440 or 5413, and since the script (not the auction at any specific table) governs the opponents' hands, then the people who opened 1D don't get a break. I think this unfairly punishes pairs who play a standard opening bid style, but oh well. Perhaps in the future it would be better to not have such a specific script.

I actually thought 3C, 3D, and 6D were all pretty clear. 5D on the last hand is a huge underbid I think. Partner is asking us if we have anything other than the SK, since we have shown nothing so far, so in context our hand is pretty amazing (doubleton diamond and two extra queens).

what is he suposed to do with 2236 loaded? If he is strong enough to double 4H with 2236 for takeout, he is strong enough to double 5H for penalty.

Passing 3N is basically nullo. 1) If diamonds don't run 3N could (easily) be down with 5D cold. 2) The opposite is not true, if 3N is making 5D is almost always making. 3) If partner can cuebid anything we are happy to bid 6D, and 6H could even be right.

I agree, I would prefer to not see hands like this that seem to be basically systemically random (there were two, this one and another where you had to stop in 3D opposite a strong NT).

Also strongly disagree with the scoring, 3D= and 1N+1 (or more) seem extremely common. 3N and 5D don't deserve the same score, 5D is down probably 2 and 3N is down only 1 or making on a bad lead.

The auction at most (standard) tables started this way: 1D 1S 2C P 3C X

I agree 3N in practice will usually outscore 5C.

How can 4D score 10 while 3N scores 2 if you agree 4D is often down, so they will often be the same result? This is not mathematically consistent. How can 3N score the same as 5D when 5D is down at least 1, while 3N is just down 1 basically always? How can 2S score 7 when LHO has the majors? Do we just pretend he doesn't have the majors if you open 2D, but he does have the majors if you don't?

I still don't get why 5C deserves the top score. West drove to the 3 level unfavorable at matchpoints into an unlimited auction where partner did not promise a fit. He does not rate to be 5431 at all, his most likely shapes are 64(21), 6430, and 5440. In the first two cases you are instantly down (Ben seems to think the hand is rotated, but the player with short spades is on lead), and in the third case you can always pick up diamonds if you are looking at the opponents' hands, but you can only ruff diamonds twice in your hand due to the 3-0 trump break, so you have to choose to play west for ONE of KJxx, Kxxx, or Jxxx (I think Ben mistakenly analyzed it double dummy, where you can pick up all three of these holdings). So overall I think 5C should actually be below average, by my estimates it would go down much more than half the time if we couldn't see the opponents' hands. I also don't get how 3Hx could get such a high score, I would expect it to usually make on the CA lead, and making 4 is not even that unlikely.

I just want to add this is another problem with not playing Flannery, the range of 1H P 1S P 2S is truly ridiculous. It shows anything from a 35(32) 11 count with major suit concentration to a 45(31) 13 count.

It is not going to be horrible if you have a weak hand with lots of spades to either just bid 4S or pass 3H. It's going to be pretty horrible to guess to bid 3N, 4H, or 4S if you have a strong hand with 6+ spades. Not to mention there are a lot more of these hands than the first kind of hands.